CNN

"Mike – your rationale can justify almost any military action and it quite honestly doesn't make sense. Soldier's lives are valuable too – they're not expendable as your post seems to suggest. They expect that if they are called up, that its absolutely necessary for the safety and security of this country."

----–

Yeah Mike, we should bring out our "big guns" for a potential crisis as you postulate. Sean Penn and Danny Glover can go over there and hug-em to death. Look, you'll never convince these people, unless their relatives are the victims of a terrorist act.

How can any man of God hold a Bible in one hand and talk about killing on the other hand. Huckabee's religious morals are questionable to me. If he is a man of God why isn't he talking about peace. Does political aspirations cause a man to lose his soul to the devil. Remember Bush talked about God on one hand and look at the American blood he has on his hands. All these words of threat need to stop and all these old men need to stop sending our young troops to war while their ivy league children are enjoying life.

Huckalberry is mearly saying that he will send his boy Chuck over to Pakistan if they begin to act weird with their nuclear warheads. And we all know what Chuck can do...

Mike Huckleberry...oops...Huckabee...is as much an idiot as Bush, with all his talk of preemptive strikes in between his Jesus-touting....now with Norris on his team, I'm really beginning to wonder about his sanity

We have had 7 1/2 years of irresponsible saber rattling, we do not need another four.

It really blows my mind how blind so many of you are here! If credible intelligence shows us that terrorists either have taken possession of Pakistan's nukes or are preparing a major terrorist attack from Pakistan, you guys are saying that we should do nothing? Of course we would get the most support possible from Congress and Pakistan's government before taking action. But we are talking about an EM-IN-ENT threat people! That means that it's on the verge of happening! So many of you people really need to come back to reality. Any president, Democrat, or Republican....any AMERICAN should realize what the responsibility of the President is in such a case. This is NOT rocket science...it's common sense. Try providing a good suggestion about what the President should do in such a case, rather than simply writing the idea off as ridiculous. I challenge anyone to provide a better solution for a response to an EMINENT ATTACK from within Pakistan's borders than what Mike Huckabee has suggested. And if it helps, try reading what he said again...but this time, be objective rather than blinded by political leanings.

Heck, I'd bomb them dirty bums just cuzz they're untrustworthy and deceitful. But that won't fly with the public, will it?

Posted By KEITH JAMES LOUTTIT : November 25, 2007 9:12 pm

How about we bomb your family and kill your loved ones? How would you like it if your children and brothers were scattered across the ground; an arm here, a leg there. Do you have children?

Read between the lines here folks and see what Mile H. is really saying.
He will use anything as an excuse to attack another soverign nation.

Who the hell does this Huck think he is? Has he lost his mind? How can he decide to just go and bomb a country just because he thinks they are an imminent terrorist threat? What if Pakistanis think America is an imminent terrorist threat, are they allowed to come bomb us here?

But on a second note, yeah, go to war with Pakistan, under one condition, if this Huck is on the ground in Tora Bora with his family as well as George W, his two girls, wife, dad and mom, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney fighting their enemy their.

It is sad that an insane person like the Huck (who believes in biblical inerrancy!!!) is even a runner for presidency! Have we run out of sane, sensible, and humane people to lead this country?

Oh great. Just what this country needs: another yutz in the White House with an itch to be "a war president."

Bomb them. Invade them. "Surgical strike" them. It's all the same: an invitation for a full-scale WWIII.

Way to talk thinking folks out of voting for you, Mike!!!

Strike Pakistan!!! WOOHOO!!! That's gonna get my vote. I got to clear it with the Pope. Oh, wait. The Pope says: "That is two fish five loaves all the way!!!"

http://www.golden-lamp.com

Lets cut the out of the deal...

Though you may not agree with or like him, let's be honest to ourselves. The question was "if there were an "imminent" terrorist threat within the country."

His awnsewer was he would take military action "if that helps save and preserve American people"

Under such circumstance, you may still prefer being attacked and die rather than taking military action. But, don't blame your president if he tries to save your life. I won't.

I'm sorry folks to burst your bubble but this country is just not going to have a President HUCKABEE. Just like we will never have a President LIPSCHITZ. If Mikes' surname was say, ARMSTRONG he would have some chance. But HUCKABEE?, no way.

Check out Mike Huckabee's brand new TV ad at:

http://www.mike-huckabee.blogspot.org

Tell me what you think. Thanks.

Mike Huckabee has spoken as a clear rational President would. There is a real threat out there and if it pops up to kill us, we will not beat it back with words. About the character of Mike Huckabee, he would not hurt anyone who was not bent on hurting us. His sanctity of life is from conception to the grave adn lists this as our greatest American quality. He is of the mindset of living life by living, whereas they , the Islamofascists, are for living life by killing.

You who wish to invoke the name of Jesus so calusly, be taking care for your soul.

Jesus came for saving the individual, not on being submissive to evil in a Nation's spirit. Blessed is he who lays down one's life for his fellow man. Thank you veterans and soldiers, for your Love. May you who follow the far left, wake to find your riding on the train whose next stop is full communism.

"A heavy or progressive or graduated income tax is necessary for the proper development of Communism.", Karl Marx

What have we done?
It is time for the Fair Tax!
http://www.fairtax.org

Heck, I'd bomb them dirty bums just cuzz they're untrustworthy and deceitful. But that won't fly with the public, will it?

That's just my personal opinion, and I bet this one will get censored!

Either way, I'm not voting for anyone who talks about bombing anyone during a campaign. Let Hillary wait until she gets in office! Oooops, I meant whoever gets to buy the Presidency this time.

We don't need another leader who thinks that whatever he does, even if it's a total screwup, is ok as long as the magical ghost in the sky forgives him. We have that now..It would be nice to have someone rational in office that doesnt need a contrived
fairy story as a crutch or to make
decisions..

Jim – Austin, TX

Jesus just helps us to makes the Bombs!

Huckabee is right here. Of course Pakistan will work with us against terrorists now that they know where Huckabee stands. President Huckabee won't be surprising Pakistan with anything. Pakistan may or may not be able to help us – but if we know for sure where Bin Laden is, we should attack. Now, you can say we'll never be sure enough, well that's a judgement call, and I want someone who's judgement I trust.

We should be grateful that Huckabee has shown his position. I had no idea he was so stupid about the oil business, history and the ME.

He's just another George Bush. Shame.

I hope that we, the American people, have a chance to decide which candidate to put into office and not leave it up to the press to decide for us. I have liked what I have heard from Huckabee since I first heard him on tv. Lets really listen to what he has to say. I believe that he stated it correctly, the first and foremost job of the President of the United States is to do whatever he has to in order to protect the American people, as long as it is done based on the best possible information and not a personal agenda.

WWJB?

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Phill Dacosta: Huckabee is best choice in the presidential field
| | Story updated at 10:22 PM on Saturday, October 6, 2007
I'm tired of hearing both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates using each other as scapegoats for everything that is wrong. Scapegoating is the last thing this nation needs. It polarizes a society, preventing those involved in wrongdoing from realizing and admitting their wrongs. It does nothing to solve the problems at hand, but only leaves them to worsen.

Republican Mike Huckabee is the only presidential candidate who is seeking solutions to problems, not scapegoats on which to place the blame. He is the only candidate with a proven track record in working with both parties to get things done without compromising his core values. Now more than ever, America needs a leader like Mike Huckabee, with proven leadership skills and commonsense vision to move our great country forward again.

Phill Dacosta

Ball Ground

most of the comments on this post are ludacris....it's really simple...what we call self defense in legal arena...you know something is threatening your existence and you just sit and wait till it eats you up? Huckabee is not trigger happy, but rational, the only problem is he plagarized obama. I was hoping to read comments on his definition of "actionable intelligence" cause that's where they realy throw us off.

Mike, the picture you seem to be conjuring mirros that of Rummy's and the rest of the Bush administration. To think that "surgical" attacks are going to seriously cause minimal effects and damage is dead wrong. What doesn't make any sense is that what you are saying is that if Pakistan is unable to defend the stock of Nuclear weapons from the terror cells, then we must step in and defend them with surgical attacks. As we have learned from two previous wars, (Iraq and Afghanistan), surgical attacks don't work in the war on terror. Why must we continue going down this road of utter failures. These terrorist are spread out, hidden, and excellent at recruitment. If we take out some, more will join. We need to come at Pakistan with a different stance, with different language and a different attitude, one that is 180 degrees from the one that Huckabee is proposing. It is imperative that we work alongside Pakistan in dealing with the terrorists rather than use language that mirrors our past mistakes.

The Huck Just made his death bed. Huck's surge in popularity is a result of his obscene evangelicalism. He claimed that he his a compassionate conservative. Ring a bell? The only difference is that Huck is coming right out in the open that he is willing to be a trigger happy president like the one we have in office. I am glad he spoke honestly so that America is reminded that we do not need another Bush presidency.

This is really scary. He is an idiot. This guy would even give cheney nightmares. Define "threat". What a kook. All the things he could say...and he has to say "this". Somebody–please wake me up.

Mike, I understand what you're saying and I completely agree. I also agreed with this point when Obama made it.

A word to the wise, though, you are wasting your breath trying to talk rationally to some of the left-wing nuts who post here. Every time they hear words like "military", "Republican", or "Bush", they go into a complete tirade (read some posts on the other stories if you don't believe me). Thanks for all you do Mike, our country needs more people like you!

The only real scary part of Huckabee's "Imminent Threat" is that if he was in the White House I would call that an imminent threat for us all!

You know, I did have some hope, for a moment that you were rising up because you were Godly and different. But you're not different. I'm really sad now because, you are not a Christian and have fooled me. That doesn't happen much. I'm sorry for you. I'm hopeful, your false persona and wickedness reaches the masses before you take votes away from those who do live by their values.

"But if there is an imminent threat to the American people, then I think it is the responsibility of a president of this country to do whatever he has to do to protect you me and the rest of us standing here today."

1) Duh.

2) Try publicly coercing American corporations not to enter foreign countries with the intent to take natural resources otherwise used to better living conditions, thereby reducing the native population to servitude. Poverty creates extremism.

3) Try solving social and economic problems at home before using my tax money (statistically 46 cents of any given dollar) to bomb civilians in other countries. Actually, skip the actual bombing part and get with the rest of the progresive public.

Yeh, and his wife would be out in front with her grenade launcher!

Members from both parties have acknowledged that parts of Pakistan, especially in the north, are a mess over which Mushariff has little control. Bush has been criticized by many Dems for not being more aggressive with the American military in that region. And a couple Kool-Aid drinkers above now want to label Huckabee as "trigger happy". Most of you will be hiding anyway when the crap hits the fan it is destined to hit. Works for me, cause I do not want you in the way of those who must go into harms way.

As we have ample proof, btw, lobbing a few cruise missiles a la Bill Clinton does not fix the problem. Knee pads are not the next option either. Wake up.

Mike, US Air Force:
Well said!
From the "free thinkers", thank you for your service!

Darn right! Get 'em Mike!

http://democratequalssocialist.wordpress.com/

You won't see any Huckabee fans commenting here anymore than you would see someone straight in a gay bar. With insane liberals isn't where someone rational would waste his time. You people frenzy feed on hating anything sensible and aren't approachable. Now prove me right.

Tikara,
Also, I checked back on Clintons strikes on Bin Laden...a single man.

It happened in 1998, and it involved launching cruise missiles fired from navel ship into Afghanistan. It was a full out air strike against targets in Afghanistan, rather than Spec Ops assassination attempts.

Let me clarify once again...I in no way condone us taking military action directly against Pakistan. But instead against terror cells within Pakistan that could possibly get a hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is a nuclear power, and if good, reliable, intelligence gave us extremely high certainty that terrorists posed a threat of obtaining those nuclear weapons, or of launching any other high threat attack against the U.S., then we would need to attempt to get Pakistan's support in eliminating that threat. If Pakistan did not support us for various reasons (i.e. their government became radicalized by a terrorist coup), then we would have to take action in order to save American lives. This is what Huckabee is saying. Don't forget the threat that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal poses...this is what separates Pakistan from a place like Saudi Arabia...as a previous blogger mentioned. Also, this is what seemingly separated Iraq...since we believed they had WMD. Can we afford to not take action in such a case if the threat seemed eminent? We have to make a decision at that moment based on available intelligence, and we have to be decisive or the cost could be dire. This is what I believe Huckabee is saying.

Dean,
Regarding your comment on soldier's...Yes..there lives are valuable. But the job of soldiers and all servicemen and women is to protect the lives of the people of the U.S. and to follow the orders of officers and the President. They are not expendible, but they answer the call when absolutely necessary for national security.

Tikara, again...we aren't talking about nuke bombing Pakistan...it would be surgical bombing or strikes minimizing damage to non-military targets and civilians...we would not be attacking Pakistan "proper", but at terrorist cells and infrastructure within the country. The minimum attack necessary to achieve security.

Don't assume that just because Bush eventually had us perform a full invasion of Iraq, that this will be come standard operating procedure for future action. Again, I believe this is what Huckabee is saying.

I don't see any Huckabee fans here, defending this insanity. I wonder why? Maybe because it's about an issue that is actually important and REAL unlike the recent news Huckabee has been riding on.

Mike from TX, yes Clinton did order strikes against Bin Laden, but it was more like an assassination atempt with Special Ops. He didn't ask for Congress approval because he wasn't bombing a country, wouldn't affect the economic stability of a country. However useing nukes to bomb Pakastan to "get Bin Laden" not only is an act of war and would need Congressional approval but would set back any dealings with Pakastan which is an ally in dealing with terrorist groups. I appreciate the fact that you serve in our millitary, but you need to realize that America dosen't have the right to step on whoever we want to get whatever it is we're after.

Mike – your rationale can justify almost any military action and it quite honestly doesn't make sense. Soldier's lives are valuable too – they're not expendable as your post seems to suggest. They expect that if they are called up, that its absolutely necessary for the safety and security of this country.

Are you guys losing your minds? So there was a mistake with intelligence regarding Iraq...everything looks crystal clear in hind-sight. We can't afford to second-guess ourselves IF WE HAVE STRONG CREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES or some variation thereof that there is a terrorist threat within Pakistan's borders. Also, Huckabee isn't saying that we are going to attack the country of Pakistan...i.e. the government or military. He is only saying if there is a threat within Pakistan's borders, that we would have to take action....and with Pakistan's backing if possible. If Pakistan's government doesn't support us, we can't allow that to prevent us from taking the necessary action. We're talking about nukes here people! Pull your heads out! Don't forget back in '97 or '98 or whenever it was...Clinton ordered attacks on targets within Afghanistan in an attempt to take out Bin Laden.

Here we go again... Scratch another Republican candidate from my short list of possibilities. I could even overlook his literal interpretation of the Bible, but this war-mongering posture will not do.

I wonder how many Republicans will call him irresponsible.

The majority of the hijackers that were on those planes on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians, as were the people that masterminded the attacks. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia and converted them to Democracy. Then we wouldn't be reading about their socially retarded views on how woman should be treated.

Gov. Huckabee,
Thank you for your trigger-happy stand that helps splitting the votes of “stay the course” crowd five ways instead of four. That makes the nomination of Ron Paul a certainty.

Did you know that he is winning in the 1st District TN?

Clinton and Edwards agreed with Obama at the time. Please correct the inaccurate information in this post.

From First Read:

Interestingly, one candidate who seemed to find agreement with Obama was Clinton. "Clinton said in a radio interview later in the day that she also would not hesitate to attack Al Qaeda targets on Pakistani territory. ‘If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America,’ Clinton told American Urban Radio Networks."

Edwards seemed to agree with him, too. “‘We have a responsibility to go find al Qaeda and (Osama) bin Laden wherever they operate,’ Edwards said after a fundraiser in San Francisco, appearing to agree with Obama's call during a major foreign policy speech in Washington for possible U.S. military action in Pakistan against terrorists hiding there. Edwards said that if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can't control such operatives, ‘we have to do it.’”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/02/301273.aspx

Strike Pakistan? Are you freaking nuts? Is this moron a disciple of 'Dubya' or what? We'll take to the streets like we did in 1968. I figure with a few thousand more body bags it will happen, get ready you old peaceniks.

Hmm, this is weird. What would Pakistan's president do if he knows there is imminent threat from Huckabee administration to the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Ut Oh!!! Another trigger-happy chickenhawk. How about getting a resolution for war from congress? I'm glad the media is pretending he has more support than he does, he's getting "cocky". So much for conservative..........or God.

Oh give it a break with "imminent threat". These guys assume that they get accurate information – just like the weapons of mass destruction. How about the stance of human rights, economic development and opportunity for repressive societies... that's the approach being used in China – why aren't we bombing China if we are going to use the "imminent threat" policy... it is so wrought with ego and misinformation. If our country continues with this policy – we'll end up like all of the other supposed "great" civilizations in history – Greece, Rome, Spain, England... struggling to be important because no one wanted anything to do with them – look where those civilizations ended up... think about it.

Make up a threat,rattle sabers,diminish US domestic freedoms. Lather,rinse,repeat.